BARGAINING UPDATE #2 - NORTHWESTERN THINKS POSTDOCS & RAs DON'T DESERVE UNION SHOP

April 21, 2026 

TL;DR: 

• Collective action gets the goods. NU agreed to regular negotiations twice per month in May, June, and July. However, these are half-day sessions. Northwestern continues to delay.

• Northwestern suggests Open Shop for postdocs and RAs, proposing standards lower than virtually any other union at the University.

• General Members’ Meeting on Thursday, April 23rd at 11am. We’ll provide updates on our second round of bargaining. RSVP here!

• Social at Beermiscuous on Friday, April 24th at 6:30pm. RSVP here!

Dear members,

Today was our second negotiation session—and what a session it was!

This morning, members showed up in massive numbers to send the University a message: FULL DAYS, NO DELAYS. We rallied, chanted, and shared coffee and bagels. Northwestern’s security tried to put a stop to it, at one point preventing members of the bargaining committee from entering the elevator to get to the meeting room. Fortunately, the BC eventually made it up to the room. 

This collective action moved the University. At the end of our session, they committed to two dates in June and two in July. The lesson is clear: united we bargain, divided we beg. 

Postdocs and RAs showing up to tell the University: FULL DAYS, NO DELAYS. Not pictured: members of the University’s team taking out their phones to film and sneer at us.

Unfortunately, they did not commit to full-day sessions, nor did they commit to meeting in Chicago. This is unacceptable. We need full-day negotiation sessions, and we need them now. We need to negotiate in our workplaces, not random buildings in downtown Evanston, distant from either campus. 

Beyond our discussion on dates and logistics, the University offered counterproposals to several articles: Non-Discrimination, Union Security, Health and Safety, Bargaining Unit Information, and Discipline and Discharge. They introduced two new proposals on University Management Rights and No Strike clauses. Notably, they rejected our entire Inclusive Work Environment Article. What’s more, after 5 weeks of missed deadlines and slow responses to emails, they failed to respond to 12 other articles we proposed. What were they doing for those five weeks? 

In good news, we did sign our first tentative agreements, on Ground Rules and Severability. We also made quick work of their proposals, drafting and responding with counterproposals on Health and Safety, Bargaining Unit Information, and Discipline and Discharge at the session. We look forward to their counterproposals on the aforementioned articles, and the 12 they’ve not yet responded to, in the coming weeks. Let’s go through the main highlights here. For even more details on language, visit our bargaining tracker!

You can also watch BC member Madeline walk us through today’s negotiations here. 

The fight for Union Shop

The main point of contention at the session was the University’s rejection of Union Shop. Union shop means that all workers join the union within a set period of time after being hired. Union shop is fair, democratic, and ensures everyone pays their share.

Northwestern counterproposed with an open shop. First, they mischaracterized our proposal as “Closed Shop”, which is not accurate. Closed Shop has been illegal since 1947, and their team knows this. They then argued that postdocs and RAs have a uniquely high turnover, and that new hires may not want to join the union if they didn’t vote in our election last Summer. They framed open shop as a matter of “freedom” for new hires. They also claimed our contracts often last only one year and suggested that custodial workers, who may work at NU for 30+ years, can have Union Shop, but postdocs and RAs cannot. 

NU’s behaviour at the table makes one thing clear: they either have not done their homework, or they are deliberately twisting our proposals. We sure don’t know any workers who move cities or countries just to stay in their position for only a year! In reality, many postdocs stay in their positions for 5+ years. And every other union at NU has Union Shop. Postdoc unions across the country (e.g., Cornell, Columbia, Mount Sinai) have Union Shop. We’ll fight for Union Shop, too. 

“Those international workers you care so much about” 

NU again resorted to divisive language, falsely accusing us of not caring about international workers because we are demanding Union Shop. This is patently untrue. In fact, we know that international workers stand to benefit the most from a strong union founded on Union Shop with enforceable grievance procedures. These can help protect foreign postdocs/RAs from unfair termination and forced departure from the country. 

Indeed, we opened the session by highlighting the unique challenges international workers face. More than 70% of our union members are international. NU tried to turn that reality against us. In opposing Union Shop, they argued it would force the University to fire “those international workers you care so much about.” That language is unacceptable and dehumanizing.

International workers are not bargaining chips. They are essential to the University, and they deserve real protection. They are not a weapon to be used against a bargaining committee that is itself 2/3 international.

Can the University ensure a safe workplace?

In their counterproposal on Health and Safety, NU struck the term “ensure” from the statement  “The University shall maintain policies that ensure a safe workplace”, and replaced it with “promote”. That is a major downgrade. Promoting safety is not the same as ensuring it. Moreover, NU has already agreed that graduate students deserve policies that ensure their safety. We work in the same labs, often training those very graduate students, and deserve the same protection. We will not accept weaker standards for our unit.

Protecting employees from retaliation 

The University has made its position clear. Verbally, they rejected our proposal to establish an inclusive work environment. They also completely struck through our proposal to protect workers from retaliation. We have to ask: does the University actually want an inclusive workplace? Do they care about preventing retaliation against workers? Their behaviour at the table does not inspire confidence. We may finally have an answer to the question of how they found it acceptable to sign a deal with the federal government under the Trump regime’s anti-DEI crusade. 

Academic freedom—for me but not for thee

In the University’s proposal on Management Rights, they included a provision about academic freedom stating that nothing in the eventual contract shall limit or infringe upon the University’s academic freedom. When we raised the example of a research team conducting anti-trans research that actively harms members of our community, the University’s response was that they would not infringe on researchers’ academic freedom. However, they did not respond to our proposal to protect our academic freedom.

Let’s be honest about what this means: the University is willing to shield research that targets and harms trans people (while rejecting our protective language from Inclusive Work Environment), and then cynically hide behind the language of academic freedom to excuse it. This is not a neutral principle, it is a choice. And it tells us exactly whose harm the University is prepared to overlook. If the University won’t keep us safe, we’ll keep us safe. Collective bargaining is how we make that happen.